---

EU: Russia (EUC Report)

I, too, add my congratulations to my colleague and noble friend Lord Teverson on so ably introducing the committee’s report. In welcoming it, the Government endorse the importance—the committee noted this—of the EU’s swift reaction to the crisis in Georgia and its facilitating a ceasefire agreement. The Government rightly recognised the EU’s ability to use military and civilian tools to foster stability and enhance security in that area at an international level. As noble Lords have already mentioned, the exact circumstances surrounding the outbreak of conflict in August 2008 are unclear and will probably remain so. However, we should support efforts within the European Union, particularly those of umbrella institutions, as they work towards attempting to establish conditions for meaningful dialogue between Russia and Georgia, who are both members of the Council of Europe. They meet in a democratic parliamentary assembly in Strasbourg and there is an opportunity for their peers within the European Community to hold both of them to account in democratic debate. It is right that they should, and can, be held accountable for the actions of their military and civilian personnel during and after this war between the two states. I shall make further reference to Russia, Georgia and the European Community in due course, but both parties should be investigated for breaches of international humanitarian conventions. Russia should be held to meet in full all international commitments and obligations, particularly those agreed under the Sarkozy peace plan. The attempts by Russia to move the goalposts by claiming that the separatist areas of Abkhazia and South Ossetia have evolved as if by magic into sovereign independent states while they remain clearly under Russia’s patronage should be rebuffed. The Government’s response to the committee’s report was prepared some two months ago and events have moved on in various directions and to varying degrees. To some extent this is encouraging, but it is a cause for concern. The European Union Committee was seriously concerned that Russia had not complied fully with the Sarkozy-Medvedev peace plan. The Government were right to point out that the plan to militarise the breakaway separatist regions under the fabricated "bilateral" agreement further violates Georgian sovereignty and territorial integrity. Their view is shared by the international community and the European family of nations: the EU, the UN and the Council of Europe. The key requirements of the ceasefire agreement were the withdrawal of Georgian military forces to their usual bases and the withdrawal of Russian military forces to the lines they held before the hostilities broke out. The latest reports from international monitors show that the deployment of Georgian troops continues to be in line with the provisions of the ceasefire agreement, that there has been no increase in troops from the Georgian side, and that special police force units are being replaced by the regular police force in that country. The major cause of Russia’s lack of compliance and heightened instability in the region is to all intents its unilateral recognition of the so-called independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The international community agrees that this instability is heightened by Russia’s assertion that deploying troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia is a matter of bilateral agreement with the de facto authorities in the breakaway areas and therefore is no longer governed by the ceasefire agreement. This is frankly ludicrous when, out of the 211 United Nations member states, only Nicaragua has joined Russia in recognising the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned the issue of Russian passports to non-Russians. When Russian parliamentarians were challenged about this recently, they claimed that Russian passports had not been issued to non-Russian citizens in South Ossetia; the South Ossetian authorities had issued South Ossetian passports to citizens in that area. I will be grateful to hear whether the Minister has any news because that is clearly an interesting development in the status of the areas concerned. In short, the international community has concluded that while Georgia has not fully complied with all the ceasefire agreement demands, Russia has failed to comply with most of them. In fact, Russia could be seen to be moving further away from the minimum conditions for a meaningful dialogue. A key factor in the continuing instability in the region appears to be the uncertain status of the international monitoring commissions. The denial of access to the breakaway areas by the de facto authorities in South Ossetia and Abkhazia creates a major obstacle to implementing the incident prevention and response mechanisms agreed by the parties at the talks in Geneva in February. Clearly these procedures are essential if security and stability are to be established in these volatile areas and renewed confrontation is to be avoided. I think I am right in saying that the next round of Geneva talks is scheduled for 18 and 19 May, and I would be grateful to the Minister if, in his reply to the debate, he could provide us with an update on these plans and confirm, if it is known, whether the agenda includes establishing new security mechanisms —an area of debate at previous meetings—and agreement on the principles of the non-use of force in these areas. In the mean time, refusing access to OSCE and EU monitors to the volatile breakaway areas is impeding progress. Could the Minister also confirm the Government’s position on the actions needed to avoid further deterioration in security and stability? Could he refer in particular to actions to reverse the further militarisation of the breakaway regions, to which noble Lords have referred on a number of occasions today, and to implement the agreed incident prevention and response mechanisms, including joint visits by observers to the breakaway areas; to withdraw restrictions at points of entry for humanitarian aid; and to respect fully the rights of return of internally displaced persons as a result of this conflict. At present, the situation seems to be moving further away from establishing the minimum conditions for a meaningful dialogue between Russia and Georgia. For example, as noble Lords have mentioned, there are claims by the Georgian Government to have put down a brief mutiny by a tank battalion—alleged, by the way, to be part of a Russian-inspired coup attempt to depose the Georgian president. Of course, Georgia’s hosting of NATO training exercises, with 1,000-plus troops drilling close to areas where Russian troops are still stationed in South Ossetia, generated the retort from President Medvedev that the action was an "overt provocation". The meeting last week between EU nations and the "supplicant six", as I call them—the "near abroad" post-Soviet countries that form the Eastern Partnership—is being interpreted as a move to counter Russia’s proclaimed rights in its buffer region. All these developments illustrate a move away from meaningful dialogue to resolve the Russia-Georgia issues by Russia and Georgia, and they do nothing to address growing concerns over the humanitarian consequences of the war as set out in recent reports in the international community. The conflict resulted in some 130,000 people being displaced in Georgia, with 26,000 internally displaced persons still in centres in Tbilisi and elsewhere nine months later. But the humanitarian concerns are in fact far deeper than that. In addition to the recent IDPs, the Georgians have indicated that there are a further 225,000 resulting from earlier conflicts, particularly people from Abkhazia. In total, therefore, more than quarter of a million IDPs are suffering in inadequate centres that fail to meet minimum living standards, threatening the health and well-being of children and the elderly in particular. In conclusion, it is clear that the humanitarian consequences of the war between Georgia and Russia are far from being resolved. There is a climate of fear on all sides of hostilities being renewed. Solutions need to be found to ensure that an effective international presence remains in the region, providing guarantees for security and human rights. New approaches need to be found to open up dialogue between the international community, the de facto authorities and, of course, the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Both Georgia and Russia have a responsibility to see that this happens.